OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [office] accessibility caption proposal comments

On 05/06/06, Bruce D'Arcus <bruce.darcus@opendocument.us> wrote:

> A "describedBy" attribute is exactly the sort of ground that we intend
> to cover with metadata. It associates an object with a metadata
> description. In this case, that description is just plain text, but in
> other cases, it could be full metadata records (identified by uri). In
> fact, one of our use cases involves automatically generating caption
> from embedded (probably RDF) metadata descriptions.
If we can leave aside the format of the description I can see a shared
need here. We need to describe the image for a blind or partially
sighted user, you for other reasons.

I like the idea of markup within a description.
Sufficient to allow a full description, rather than a brief caption?
E.g. could you describe the Mona Lisa in one sentance...
No don't answer that Bruce :-)

> <http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/Intellectual_Property>
> >> My suggestion would instead be to use natural containment, and to add

> > How do you see one as better than the other?
> OK, let's break apart two separate issues: association and semantics.
> On the second, my contention is that "caption" is an important semantic
> structure, and so deserves its own element. To say something is
> "describedBy" is -- per above -- rather vague.
I'm sure we could argue that either way.
Caption has fairly clear semantics to me, but my gut
reaction is that it's a brief, rather than full description?

So notwithstanding the
> question of how this lines up with a broader metadata effort, I think
> we need a standard way to say what kind of description it is.
I'll ride with that quite happily.

> WRT to association, I think if we start down the path of using linking
> to associate content with description, things could get really messy.
> It's really a different design approach.
> For example, I mentioned that I didn't like the way sectioning
> currently works. Ideally, we'd have proper sectional structures a la:
> <section>
>    <p>...</p>
> </section>
> The standard way to include heading information for those is
> containment; e.g. in XHTML 2.0,

I'm convinced. Equally I'm pretty convinced that a flat structure
(minimal or no nesting unless explicitly generated) should
be supported.

> Aside: the above could benefit accessibility, yes?

> If we ARE going to go down the road of using attributes to make this
> association, then I think:
> a) we need to give it much more thought so that we adopt a consistent
> approach to these problems
> b) it needs to happen in conjunction with the metadata effort

No real arguments.

I'm willing to support a nested  text equivalent to an image
or drawing. Naming to be agreed on.
Not sure I'd support RDF to mark up such a description.
Simple inlines and some block (probably basic para class of markup)
would seem natural to me?


Dave Pawson

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]